Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Argument from ignorance asserts a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

This makes Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, AKA Paul Rugrat and Robert Tyke insane. And ignorant.

Jeremy Lin is merely on the Knicks injured reserve, but he could be back for game five versus the Heat. Were he to suffer a brain injury instead of a knee injury, he might want to consider a future as a liberal economist. But I digress…

Both Krugman and Reich offer the same “economic” shtick over and over again: Borrow more money. Spend more money. Print more money. Repeat ad infinitum until the next national-level collapse and/or revolution.

Critics [like Krugman himself] warned from the beginning that austerity in the face of depression would only make that depression worse.

Snip.

…the failure of austerity policies to deliver as promised has long been obvious. Yet European leaders spent years in denial, insisting that their policies would start working any day now, and celebrating supposed triumphs on the flimsiest of evidence.

The failure of austerity policies in the above context means this: to try and approach living within a nation’s means. Snip.

…serious analysts now argue that fiscal austerity in a depressed economy is probably self-defeating: by shrinking the economy and hurting long-term revenue, austerity probably makes the debt outlook worse rather than better.

Yes, the Rugrat considers himself a serious analyst. And perhaps because no one has come up with a model to disprove him, regardless of the self-evident non-austerity fail, he considers his hypothesis to be true. And Reich is cut from the same dwarfish cloth.

Here’s Reich, who is at least more succinct (if no less insane):

Blame it [that is, the epic European economic fail, sans Germany] on austerity economics – the bizarre view that economic slowdowns result from excessive debt, so government should cut spending.

Naturally, the Europe to America implication is this: bad things will happen to the United States should we practice “austerity.”

In general, Islamofascism refers to the notion that Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology that in many ways resembles “fascism” (i.e. the modern common definition of fascism which equates it with totalitarianism, as opposed to the original capital-F Italian-style Fascism).

More specifically, Islamofascism is used to describe either the social structure of a society living under strict Islamic shari’a law, or the interpersonal behavior of someone who acts in accordance with true Islam.

An Islamofascist can either be an Islamic fundamentalist, or someone who uses violence or bullying tactics to impose Islamic principles on others — or, more bluntly, a Muslim bigot whose religious beliefs are the source of his bigotry.

With that as background, consider this snipped piece of Margery Eagan’s story At Guantanamo: Face of human depravity seen in artist’s rendering from BostonHerald.com:

“What happened to these men [the Gitmo 5 standing trial for the 9/11 murders] has affected their ability to focus on these proceedings,” said Cheryl Bormann, attorney for one accused terrorists. Oddly, she appeared in court wearing Islamic garb that covered everything but her face. More oddly, she asked the court to order all other women present to wear similar clothes so defendants would not commit “a sin under their faith.”

I wonder: Did Bormann realize how that request will enrage her fellow Americans? And has she considered the irony of admitted mass murderers fretting over the “sin” of seeing women in skirts?

Of course in this case, the crimes the Gitmo 5 stand accused of is justified—actually, glorified—as a holy war on the infidels.

In the meantime, the modesty of their beliefs calls for women to wear Islamic garb to avoid a sin like viewing a woman’s ankle.

The Chavez “re-election” is in doubt (yeah, but so was Putin’s). Do you have to be alive to be win re-election in Venezuela? (Note: based on precedence, it would appear brain-dead is considered alive.)

Sarkozy the “conservative” loses the French presidency to a socialist.

Will the tottering Obama social-welfare state lose the American presidency to a conservative?

The vis-à-vis-à-vis comparisons are interesting. (As well as a good chance to use the phrase vis-à-vis-à-vis.)

My spidey-sense—and the economy, federal overreach, unemployment, the debt, the deficit, the bogus war on women, Fast and Furious, green “jobs,” racial hucksterism, etc.—tell me the divider-in-chief is on thin ice indeed.